The author of this blog intends to make one fairly detailed post per day discussing a particular contradiction in the bible, how it got there, and so on.http://contradictionsinthebible.com/

EDIT: I posted the above before I had started actually reading the blog. I've read the first several entries, and I can definitely say that I highly recommend it. The author, Steven Dimattei, is highly erudite and eloquent. I'd even put him in kcrady's league. I've never heard of this guy before, but I definitely plan to keep him on my mental list of "people to pay attention to".

On he's most recent post:#8: Two people, same name. One is the Father of Noah, one is the Father of Noah('s wife, since women aren't listed). Would be a lot simpler if they said the Mothers names huh.#9: There are two Enochs. #10: One had 2 extra generations. Considering the ages at the time, if Cain's side had children 20 years slower than Seth's side, this would account for a shorter descendant line. Even these days, having children at 40 instead of 20, means you most likely will only see grandchildren as opposed to great-grandchildren.

^^^ I bet I can answer that question for him. Here's a hint - it has to do with "feelings" and the marvelous christian ability to "just know" things.

@Sarevok: don't read too much into that - I crack a lot of sarcastic jokes, and it's not at all personal. I actually like both you and mhaberling quite a bit, especially in comparison to most of the theists that participate here. But none of us are likely to hold back much when we disagree with your position on something. Evidence and facts are what drive the vast majority of us here, and we don't hesitate to stomp down hard on "woo". Choose your response to screwtape's question with that in mind.

And if, in fact, you are more qualified than the guy in question, I take it all back.

Logged

“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

#8: Two people, same name. One is the Father of Noah, one is the Father of Noah('s wife, since women aren't listed). Would be a lot simpler if they said the Mothers names huh....#10: One had 2 extra generations. Considering the ages at the time, if Cain's side had children 20 years slower than Seth's side, this would account for a shorter descendant line. Even these days, having children at 40 instead of 20, means you most likely will only see grandchildren as opposed to great-grandchildren.

Your apologies for 8 & 10 do not add up. If, as you claim, one list is of the male descendants and the other is somehow of the women, they should represent paired couples, spouses. Your answers do not account for that that. In other words, somewhere there are two men or two women in the line that are not paired to anyone.

This is the same problem with the two different genealogies for jesus H in Matt and Luke. First, they are different between David and Joseph's father. Second, one has 15 more generations than the other.

There is no getting around it and the obvious answer is, they are not real.

But none of us are likely to hold back much when we disagree with your position on something. Evidence and facts are what drive the vast majority of us here, and we don't hesitate to stomp down hard on "woo".

I understand. I admit, half the time I read and re-write, and tend to skip the sources. Probably because I expect "That's from a Christian site, and is obviously bias"

sarevok, what is it about you that makes you think you know more than this guy about his particular field of expertise?

I don't think I know more than he does. I just did some searching for explanations (as I prefer to do than take things on face value) of what is offered, and wrote them in my own words If you want, I can try to find them again (SO many tabs) where I got them from, and offer them up here. Again, I read the sites, attempted to understand, and relay the information in my words.

Your apologies for 8 & 10 do not add up. If, as you claim, one list is of the male descendants and the other is somehow of the women, they should represent paired couples, spouses. Your answers do not account for that that. In other words, somewhere there are two men or two women in the line that are not paired to anyone.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. One is Noah's Father's genealogy, and one is Noah's wife's genealogy. I wasn't trying to portray paired couples, but saying that perhaps they represent the male heirs to each side. (I did give an example of my wife and my friends gf [both Bec], but I cut that out, as it was just poorly explained on my behalf)

This is the same problem with the two different genealogies for jesus H in Matt and Luke. First, they are different between David and Joseph's father. Second, one has 15 more generations than the other.

If you want, I'll look this up and try to elaborate here with sources, but this wasn't one of the contradictions listed on the site, so I didn't cover it.

BUZZZ Wrong! Until modern times, mankind always thought that the male planted a seed into a woman and she was just fertile ground for it to grow in. They thought all of the genetic history was from the male line only. No one did maternal lineages ever. It wasn't thought to matter. No ancient Hebrew writer would have ever referred to a woman's genealogy.

#8: Two people, same name. One is the Father of Noah, one is the Father of Noah('s wife, since women aren't listed). Would be a lot simpler if they said the Mothers names huh.

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong Bible, but in J's Toledoth (Gen 4:17-22) I agree with Dimattei as far as Lamech, but Gen: then says Lamech had Jabal, Jubal, and Tubalcain - no mention at ALL of Noah, so I can't see why Dimattei adds Noah to J's list.

While there's no evidence (that I've seen) for Sarevok's assertion that J'S Toledeth gives Noah's wife's lineage, there is equally nothing in Gen:4 that suggest that the lineage given is that leading to Noah. Indeed, the list given is CAIN's descendants, perhaps there as a cautionary tale?

But certainly, there's nothing in the evidence I've seen that makes clear that J's Lamech, and P's Lamech, are the exact same person. Occam surely points at "two different Lamechs" as being the obvious solution? Indeed, I can't even see where the contradiction arises!

True Story: many years back, I was listing something on ebay. A few bids had gone in (this was in the days before buyer names were hidden), and one day I received a - quite frankly - braking email from a woman who had been bidding. Seems that every time she bid, she was outbid by someone whose ebay name shared the same first name as me, and that was enough evidence to her that I had two accounts, and that I was shill bidding, and she was going to write to ebay about it. I wrote back, addressing her as "mum", and asking what she was on about, and asking if she was still coming round Sunday for dinner - and closed by pointing out that, since she had the same name as my mum, there was CLEARLY my mum, since it is impossible for two people to share the same name.

My father's name was John, and his father was William. Anyone out there want to claim to be me, because those are THEIR father's names?

Perhaps the problem is that we look at names like Methusalah and Lamech and Tubalcain, and think "no WAY would there be two people called THAT - it'd be ridiculous!". But this is, after all, an era where people thought nothing of burning their sons, or killing brothers because the cloud-spirit wasn't pleased. Calling your son Tubalcain is positively pedestrian and the epitome of suburban blandness by comparison.

Final point: In the US, in 2012, the 4th most popular boy's name was "Jayden" (WTF?)...and 5th was "Noah"(!)...86th was "Jaxon", which I've never, ever heard as a name - but clearly there are tens of thousands of them now. For girls, we see Khloe (sic), and Genesis (!!!) in the top 100.

So there happening to at some point have been two "Lamechs" in the world isn't that big a deal for me.

On what grounds is this claim to be believed? How do we know it was Noah's wife's genealogy, especially since her name does not appear?

The Lamech in Genesis 5 gives birth to a son and acknowledges God in he's naming (Gen5:28-29).In contrast, Lamech in Genesis 4 boasts about killing someone (Gen4:23-24).So one Lamech is boastful about killing someone, and the other acknowledges God by the name he gave he's child. Either Lamech has a split personality disorder, or the Lamechs are two different people, with different personalities.

Perhaps I was wrong about the Father of Noah's wife, sorry about that. I looked at the OP site, and assumed its genealogy was correct, but I don't seen in Gen4 the link between Lamech and Noah, as shown in the OP site. This appears to be an assumption on he's behalf that they are the same person.

The Lamech in Genesis 5 gives birth to a son and acknowledges God in he's naming (Gen5:28-29).In contrast, Lamech in Genesis 4 boasts about killing someone (Gen4:23-24).So one Lamech is boastful about killing someone, and the other acknowledges God by the name he gave he's child. Either Lamech has a split personality disorder, or the Lamechs are two different people, with different personalities.

Acknowledging god when you name your son and being a murderer are not mutually exclusive traits.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Of course, you are correct. I was providing evidence for why I believe it be two different people. Major swings in personality tend to indicate two different people. Though I think there is more evidence to show that they are different people (recorded acts, father), then that they are the same person (same name).

EDIT: I posted the above before I had started actually reading the blog. I've read the first several entries, and I can definitely say that I highly recommend it. The author, Steven Dimattei, is highly erudite and eloquent. I'd even put him in kcrady's league. I've never heard of this guy before, but I definitely plan to keep him on my mental list of "people to pay attention to".

That's the same impression I am getting, now that I started to read it. At first I figured it would be a simple comparison of two texts and a facile "see the contradiction?" explanation. But it's a very scholarly and in-depth consideration of the texts and the history and attitudes surrounding their writing. Thanks for posting the link.